You are probably familiar with the line that "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact." This phrase is sometimes invoked to justify restrictions of civil liberties in the interests of national security and comes from Justice Robert H. Jackson's dissent in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the conviction of a speaker for "breach of the peace" because his political comments led to angry protests at the event he was addressing. Justice Jackson stated: "There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Despite the fame of this image, in my upcoming book on the Bill of Rights I observe that no President (as President) has ever quoted this line or anything like it. This is remarkable when you consider how many security threats the United States has faced over the past sixty-plus years and demonstrates our deep commitment to the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights. I suspect, however, that this streak will end with the current President. He has not said anything about the Bill of Rights so far, but during an interview on Meet the Press in July he did say "Our Constitution is great. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, OK?"

When the President issues a new executive order on refugees and immigration, let's see if he reaches for this idea again to justify that action in the face of public criticism.

It's interesting that people like to quote a dissent, when the Court majority stated the exact opposite in Ex Parte Milligan:

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great [emergencies] of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence...."

I'm not sure if the basic idea was not expressed at various points, if perhaps not in that express way. The overall principle that free speech is not absolute, cannot be because certain things would threaten the basic security of the state or some other compelling interest has been cited. In fact, even Alexander Bickel "tempered" things a bit while defending the NYT during the Pentagon Papers Cases, in the response to a hypo by Justice Stewart. Justice Black didn't take this that well.

Justice Jackson mixed some pragmatic realism in his comments, which is also seen in his dissent in Korematsu when he in effect was more concerned with the Supreme Court endorsing a position than the fact the position occurred as a raw power matter. It's interesting to note the timing of Ex Parte Milligan in that sense. The Supreme Court was less likely to apply the principles during the war, repeatedly finding a way to avoid deciding things. See, e.g., Ex parte Vallandigham.

The trope to me is unconvincing in that the Constitution as a whole balances various things, including compelling state interests. So, freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean lacking the power to STOP the release of information on June 1 of the upcoming D-Day attack or something. And, the application tends to be exaggerated, as Justice Douglas aptly noted around twenty years later:

First, the threats were often loud, but always puny, and made serious only by judges so wedded to the status quo that critical analysis made them nervous. Second, the test was so twisted and perverted in Dennis [major Red Scare case] as to make the trial of those teachers of Marxism an all-out political trial which was part and parcel of the cold war that has eroded substantial parts of the First Amendment.

It's always struck me as a paradoxical phrase to utter, in that, when somebody says, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact!", what they really mean is that it IS a suicide pact, and on that basis ought to be broken.

I've seen no evidence as yet that the Constitution is a suicide pact, and by that I mean that strictly following it wouldn't be suicidal.

At the rate he's going, he probably won't carry California and New York in 2020, though. Trump appears to have accepted that he's never going to make Democrats happy with him, and is concentrating on making Republicans happy. Alienating people who were never going to support you seems to be without significant drawbacks.

Statistical analysis requires collection of various data over a span of time to get a general sense of public opinion, and from what I can tell from my own study in that sense have useful value.

There is going to be some debate, like there is about many things, including let's say the best judgment of what happened at some historical moment. It's helpful there to carefully analyze. So, e.g., when you say something is deemed "wildly popular" and your actual poll data shows 35% strongly support something, a red flag comes up.

Once you ratchet it down to "fairly popular" or whatever, it's of limited value to judge. Trump barely won. If deportation is "fairly popular" but even those who support it generally and conservative usual suspects worry about how it is done, that might be a problem along the edges, edges that matter.

A range of things will affect the '18 elections, of course, and this one might note even be a major issue for most states. A footnote: there are multiple special elections this year per vacancies in place for Trump nominees, putting aside local elections in some places.

I think in general it's possible to do polling well. Large samples, considerable efforts to reduce non-reply rates, polling multiple wordings and question orders so you can test sensitivity. (Just because you're measuring an opinion doesn't mean the people being polled have one...)

Think back to the election last November. Curiously, as the public polls were showing Hillary cruising to a win, her campaign canceled the celebratory fireworks planned for election night, the day before the election. Why? One assumes it's because their very expensive and professional internal polling was telling a different story from the public polls.

There's an old saying. "If you're not paying for the product, you're the product." It's worth keeping in mind when you're reading polls or news reports that came to you for free. Somebody provided you with it for a reason, and it wasn't necessarily to help you become informed.

"The correct argument is foreign citizens are not part of the People and enjoy none of the People's Bill of Rights."

is incomplete, as some foreign citizens are "persons" as used in the Bill of Rights and other portions of the Constitution. This has been addressed in an earlier thread at this Blog by Mark and Joe. The Preamble's "We, the people, of the United States ... " can include foreign citizens with residence in the US as well as perhaps other connections that I'll not detail at this ti, as I expect Humpty-Dumpty SPAM'splainin' in short order.

***It's always struck me as a paradoxical phrase to utter, in that, when somebody says, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact!", what they really mean is that it IS a suicide pact, and on that basis ought to be broken.

***

Brett has so much difficulty explaining what he really means yet Brett attempts to know what his straw man means. (I'm being facetious, as that is Brett's purpose in using a straw man in his attempt to make hay. But paradoxical?

I have always wondered how this phrase became so famous. It's not just that it's from a dissent -- dissents have often proven more convincing than majority opinions over time. It's that it's from a dissent I doubt many folks would find convincing today. And the proposition for which it literally stands -- we shouldn't interpret the Constitution in a way will destroy the country -- while likely something most would agree on in principle, isn't likely to come up as a actual threat. I can't think of an interpretation of the Constitution that would be plausible from a realistically-composed Supreme Court that would, in fact, tend to destroy the country.

I do not believe that the Constitution, imperfect as it may be [see the Preamble for its goal[, is a suicide pact, as I'm a living constitutionalist and not a textualist/originalist. But some people in their understandings of the Constitution and the perceived impacts upon them in their personal lives might disagree. This brings to mind comments made during the 2016 presidential campaign by Brett on other threads at this Blog on the dire situation of increasing suicides and drug related deaths by/of white, usually older, males. Brett thought that this was not being addressed by federal and state governments as potentially epidemic. I don't have any information on whether the rate of such suicides/drug related deaths are in decline since Nov. 8th. There could be many reasons for these death, about which I shall not speculate except for losing faith in government. I haven't lost faith in government and hope (that great word) I never shall while working for change (another great word). Consider the hope of immigrants who came here when there were no bars to entry as well as those who cleared legal bars and those who did not to survive, their contributions to America. And let's not forget the slaves who hoped for and eventually got freedom, such hope continuing despite Jim Crow. Today immigrants seeking hope and change in the desire to survive are no longer welcome for reasons to complicated to explore here. American balues of the past are being diminished. But the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Joseph, Justice Holmes' opinion for the Court in Schenck during WW I upheld a law challenged on 1st A speech grounds regarding distribution of leaflets to Americans challenging the draft. A few years later in a similar challenge, Holmes dissented in favor of the challenger. While Holmes did not admit he erred in the Schenck case, he clearly had changed his views. No mention was made in Schenck that the Constitution was not a suicide pact; rather Holmes had the famous line that the 1st A does not protect yelling fire in a theatre, whether falsely or crowded. But in Schenck, a theatre was not involved nor was a fire. The opinion in Schenck is very short and worth a read as is Holmes' dissent in Abrams a few years later. Wartimes bring out Court decisions that with the passage of time are recognized as bad. Justice Jackson's dissent might be considered a tad bad. (I'd provide cites, but I'm about to make a pastrami sub for dinner, Italian style. Meantime, try a little Googling.)

BD: "The correct argument is foreign citizens are not part of the People and enjoy none of the People's Bill of Rights."

Shag:...is incomplete, as some foreign citizens are "persons" as used in the Bill of Rights and other portions of the Constitution.

Persons who the government seeks to deny life, liberty or property enjoy due process rights. These due process rights generally do not apply to foreign citizens living outside the country unless we extradite them into or seize their property in the United States.

Foreign citizens are not part of the People and do not enjoy any substantive rights under our Bill of Rights, starting with no right to enter our nation without permission.

MF, I also was concerned with election results. Popular vote is at times not the only test there. See also, primary/caucus results where a narrow group, not "a body truly representative of the community" to cite the jury rule, decides elections.

Regarding, Holmes:

http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/5/Schenck-v-United-States

The famous line is sometimes misstated: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." A statement that is somewhat ill-applied here, especially if the later accepted maxim that there isn't a constitutionally accepted "false idea" for purposes of banning speech is factored in. But, Holmes at times was better at wittiness than nuance.

The wider rule: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." And, hindrance of the war effort is "a right to prevent" more than dissent during peacetime. Brandeis' test in Whitney v. CA very well might be better phrased, but especially at the time, Holmes' had some potential. Depending on how you applied it (thus lies a tale).

The second part is harder to defend, especially applied to some pamphlet like the one at issue. Dissent in wartime if anything should be more protected really as we saw during the Vietnam "War." OTOH, as seen by response to criticism of Trump's raid, the idea gets some pushback.

"Foreign citizens are not part of the People and do not enjoy any substantive rights under our Bill of Rights, starting with no right to enter our nation without permission."

which is still incomplete. It suggests that a foreign citizen lawfully resident-alien in the US who leaves America on a trip outside the US and then attempts to return to the US to his family* and business/occupation lacks the right re-enter our nation because SPAM claims "foreign citizens are not part of the People."

With respect to Joe's wartime comment: "OTOH, as seen by response to criticism of Trump's raid, the idea gets some pushback." that is not in the courts. Sen. McCain's criticism was supported by his 1st A speech rights and so was Trump's criticism of McCain. Which brings me to Stephen Miller, a counsellor to Trump, who served as Trump's pitbull on the Sunday political talk shows, earning Trump's tweet praise. Miller was critical of the 9th Circuit trial court and panel on Trump's controversial EO that went against Trump. Miller went beyond this and said , in effect, that there are 3 equal branches of government in the federal system and the judicial branch is not supreme. There is a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. But there is no specific provision in Article III or the rest of the Constitution that the Supreme Court has supremacy vertically over the elective federal branches. Sometimes a President may not follow a Court decision aimed at the Executive Branch. Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln come to mind. So Miller may have been technically correct. I am not aware of similar actions by presidents in my lifetime (1930 on). Let's hear from textualists/originalists on this point. But most disturbing was this statement by Miller:

"Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”

Was this a caricature from "Hogan's Heroes"? Not only does the 1st A permit such questioning by the people, so does Article III and other constitutional provisions the courts enforce.

Shag: It suggests that a foreign citizen lawfully resident-alien in the US who leaves America on a trip outside the US and then attempts to return to the US to his family* and business/occupation lacks the right re-enter our nation because SPAM claims "foreign citizens are not part of the People."

Quite right.

Presidents Hoover, Roosevelt and Eisenhower deported hundreds of thousands of legal aliens from the 1930s to the 1950s.

Foreign citizens may only enter and reside in the United States at the discretion of Congress and the President.

Thank you for the information. It confirms what I posted about the Mexican Repatriation and Operation Wetback with one exception. The general histories of the Mexican Repatriation generally include Hoover with FDR, but your evidence suggests Hoover had nothing to do with this mass deportation. I stand corrected.

To get back on topic, we are discussing foreign citizens living outside the nation, who are subject to the Trump stay. They have no rights under the Constitution and their ability to enter the country is subject to the discretion of Congress and the President. They are not part of the People.

Regardless of the rights or lack thereof foreigners have, the Constitutution prohibits the government from acts favoring or disfavoring on the basis of religion as a violation of the Establishment Clause.

SPAM I AM!'s standing corrected is also incomplete. The link addressed illegal aliens in the US, not "legal" aliens or "resident aliens."

SPAM wants to "get back on topic." But it was SPAM's incompleteness that led to our several exchanges as SPAM is loose with language. Now SPAM s:

" ... we are discussing foreign citizens living outside the nation, who are subject to the Trump stay. They have no rights under the Constitution an"d their ability to enter the country is subject to the discretion of Congress and the President. They are not part of the People."

This is still unclear because Trump's EO was unclear and is being addressed in the courts. It is also unclear per the point raised by Mr. W.

What is clear is that chaos reigns within Team Trump. In a recent tweet Trump told readers to "Get Smart" on a matter he was dealing with, suggesting critics were stupid. But I think that was a plea for help, a hidden message. He meant get Maxwell Smart who was constantly battling CHAOS. Bannon and Miller seem to be heading the chaos within Team Trump and The Donald needs a Maxwell Smart to come to his aid. "Out Like Flynn!" might help The Donald out of this mess. But Trump has certain resemblances to Maxwell Smart, who he might think of as his alter-ego.

Yes, Mr. W., a few months back, we had this conversation regarding the EC. It is a structural protection, such as some found in Art. I, sec. 9.

The 9CA opinion (involving a case not just concerning California; various states are involved in current litigation ... many states also was involved in litigation against the Obama Administration's immigration policies) also noted that the states have standing. It held the EC argument for the moment, focusing on due process, including of the classes cited by Shag, citing SCOTUS precedent on the point.

Finally, there is the general concern that the executive order went beyond what current statutory law dictates, including the rights supplied to non-citizen persons. As a libertarian noted: "It cannot be that the text should be read that the President can do whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants, without requiring some clarity." https://ricochet.com/410217/ninth-circuit-right-put-trumps-executive-order-hold/

This all is somewhat on topic because there is no "suicide pact" necessary, vetting appropriate but with limits, which in the long one promotes our interests.

Foreign citizens living outside the US ("foreigners") have no rights under the First Amendment.

Foreigners might have an equal protection argument if they are otherwise eligible for entry under the US Code and are barred entry by an express presidential ban on Muslim immigration. In that case, you would have a very interesting argument weighing religious discrimination against national security when Muslims are waging a religious war against the United States.

Trump did not enter a Muslim ban or stay, however.

Foreigners do not have a cognizable equal protection argument based on disparate impact because a perfect and perfectly legal vetting system barring entry to ISIS/AQ members would impact only Muslims.

The Establishment Clause is a prohibition on government action, talk of which individuals have a right under it is irrelevant. For example, if the government decided to promote Christianity abroad by printing and distributing Bibles in other countries that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause even if no citizens were recipients.

"Trump did not enter a Muslim ban or stay"

Sure, and that Florida town didn't ban Santeria animal sacrifices, it just passed an animal abuse ordinance.

That something is a violation of the constitution and whether someone has standing to challenge it are two separate things. As to the second question, as Joe points out there are ways to get to standing here.

The Establishment Clause has various purposes and they work as a whole. The cases generally respect people who cited direct harms and one can phrase it that way here too. If Congress establishes a religion to favor or burden foreigners' religions, including use of funds to carry it out, it affects "the people" here in various ways.

Anyway, a flavor of the EC concerns is found in a ruling out of Virginia:

Following my latest comment regarding "Get Smart," I read a NYTimes editorial by a member of the Board focusing on the Foreign Policy situation that surfaced while Trump was dining with Japan's Abe at The Donald's Winter WH that included Trump imposing himself on a wedding reception function there, the author comparing The Donald to Rodney Dangerfield's "Caddyshack" character. I await "Caddyshack" on TV to more fully appreciate the comparison. And I'll be comparing the Ted Knight character to VP Mike Pence. FORE!

By the Bybee (expletives deleted), the SPAM'splainin' continues. Thanks to Joe and Mr. W I've had time to shower and start the laundry. Soon I'll have lunch with a Charlie Rose re-run and then return with my needle for this thread.

One person who has done good work analyzing these issues is Michael Dorf, a former clerk of Justice Kennedy [as is Gorsuch] who has written/edited various books on constitutional law (and animal rights). See, e.g., here including comments (in which he directly touches upon the EC issue). He has noted the issues here are somewhat open, showing how citing older cases only takes us so far.

I do not see how a disparate impact claim for religious discrimination can succeed given that a perfect and perfectly legal vetting system excluding only members and supporters of ISIS, al Qaeda and its allies would by necessity target the Muslim majority nations in which these groups operate and would by definition only exclude Muslims.

Dorf is responding to the claim that even if discriminatory motive can be established, the Muslim ban can't be a violation because it only impacts 15% of Muslims. As he says, there'd be no thought that if a racist police chief could be shown to have targeted black neighborhoods because they're mostly black that there's no violation because only 15% of blacks live in those neighborhood. In other words your missing that his argument isn't a standard disparate impact but relies on evidence of bigoted motive.

Trump emphasizes the need for extreme vetting of foreigners covered by his his immigration EO ban on grounds of national security. It's shame that Trump did not call for extreme vetting of the now resigned Flynn who as NSA was to be Trump's eyes on national security. At the NYTimes online Frank Bruni covers the lack of such vetting for not only Flynn but also other advisers on his staff and in his cabinet.

By the Bybee (expletives deleted), Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz drop-kicked to the sidelines any investigation of the Trump/Flynn matter. Perhaps Chaffetz needs some talcum powder to properly carry out his duties.

"As he says, there'd be no thought that if a racist police chief could be shown to have targeted black neighborhoods because they're mostly black that there's no violation because only 15% of blacks live in those neighborhood."

Let's say that a police chief says, "I'm going to crack down on black gangs!"

He then proceeds to do so. This is attacked as racist. His defense is that,

1. They were gangs, and engaged in organized criminal activities.

2. He's left most of the blacks in the neighborhood alone, as they weren't in criminal gangs.

Of course your analogy is inapt as to Trump, who has called for a ban on Muslims, period, on record before. So it would be like a chief saying 'I'm going to crack down on blacks' and then targetting mostly black high crime neighborhoods and then defending himself by saying 'what, this is targetting high crime areas, not blacks!'

Mr. W: So it would be like a chief saying 'I'm going to crack down on blacks' and then targetting mostly black high crime neighborhoods and then defending himself by saying 'what, this is targetting high crime areas, not blacks!'

Your criminal gang analogy is inapt.

Islamic fascism has waged a religious war against the United States and the West in general for over a generation now. There are no Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist counterparts at war with us whom Trump is ignoring out of some animus towards Muslims.

All of Islam may not be at war with us, but all of our enemies in this war are Muslim. By definition, then, any action we take to defend ourselves in this war will be taken against Muslims and the venues for such actions will be overwhelmingly Muslim majority nations.

Therefore, if our judiciary reverses our defenses in this war based on their disparate impact on Muslims, they are rendering our nation defenseless.

Joe, I do have access to MeTV via Comcast basic cable but don't watch it very ofter. On the Decades network also included in the cheapest package Get Smart is sometimes featured, including weekend binges. I was saturated with Hogan's Heroes years ago. My reference was not aimed at Sgt. Shultz and his "I know nothing!" which could apply to some Trump spokespersons (and literally to Trump) but to some of the POW Camp brass and their "You wills." Miller has no connection to his joke writer namesake. The Miller quote has received quite a bit of coverag. Maybe I'll stay up late to see if Miller took Colbert's challenge. Miller and Flynn will get a lot of coverage through the weekend. Meantime Putin is testing Trump missile launching sites. Apparently Putin does not need to use the dossier - yet. [Nyet yet?] I'm still chuckling over the NYTimes "Caddyshack" editorial

Bart it's exactly apt. Brett stipulated in his example that all the gangs were indeed made up of blacks (" fresh out of white gangs to crack down on"). So it's directly on point, you just recoil in the obvious parallels because after 50 years even conservatives have caught up to the idea of treating blacks as a group differently. I don't want to have to wait that long for you to learn the same re Muslims.

SPAM I AM! is back in his Chicken Little "The Sky Is Falling" mode. SPAM may be preparing to join the Sean Insanity Crusade against Islamic fascism. Where exactly would they go to fight that religious war? Query: Does Congress have the power to declare such a religious war?

I assume Mr. W after recovering from SPAM's LOL comment will respond. SPAM with this rant fits right in with Team Trump. I would point out that SPAM having repeatedly referred to Trump as fascist, such a war/Crusade would be between fascists.

SPAM I AM! introduces Karmic Justice as a means of SPAM'splainin' why he continues to have his own derriere handed to him. It's sort of like Trump via a tweet upset more with "leaks" revealing Flynn rather than Flynn's transgressions for which Trump ordered him to resign. Perhaps there was Karmic Justice in the release of the Access Hollywood tapes.

Bart, more Muslims have died helping us fight jihadis than there are U.S. victims of those jihadis. You would treat them the same as the jihadis, not to mention that you'd like to do the same to those Muslims the jihadis oppress. Don't lecture anyone on resisting the evil of jihadis, you're enabling them.

Oh, my. I see that Tushnet's TDS has reached stage four: Imagining that Republicans might be willing to replace him with a Democrat.

It's incurable once it reaches that stage, nothing left but hospice.

Bartbuster: "He wants a religious war."

We HAVE a religious war, whether we want one or not. That's the annoying thing about wars, you don't have to agree to it to end up being in one, the other guy can start one without your cooperation.

Islam is in a state of war with everybody else, they have been for about 1300 years. The Islamic term for territory Islam doesn't control is "Dar al-Harb", which means, "The house of war". Islam is at war with everyone who doesn't submit to Islam.

We don't have any choice about being at war with Islam. The only question is whether we fight our side of it, or let them win by default.

Islam is, theologically, and as a practical matter, at war with the whole non-Islamic world. It's also at war with itself, which provides us with opportunities for temporary alliances, in a manner reminiscent of WWII.

But just like with the USSR, it's important to remember that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

The 1300 years war? Brett could timeline the various Crusades to consider which side was the aggressor and other pertinent information about warfare. Brett provides "History in a Nut's Shell." Can we expect our own Brettbart (the really, really, really "unBreit") to lead the Trump Team Crusade into the battle of fascists in the current phase of the 1300 year religious war? They may get more laughs than Monty Python's crusades. Query: If the fascists on both sides of this Crusade were to die, might that be Karmic Justice?

By the Bybee (expletives deleted), recall Trump's claims during the campaign that he was smarter than the Generals. If so, why did he hire so many Generals? So he could fire them when they did dumb things? Also, recall Trump's campaign pledges about Wall St. and its financial messes. Yet he hired quite a few Wall Streeters. And did President Trump fire Acting AG "Rowdy" Yates not for her declining to go to court on defending Trump's immigration EO but for delivering the bad news on the intell on Flynn? There's an old Greek saying, The fish rots from the head down, that applies to Team Trump.

Mr. W: Bart, more Muslims have died helping us fight jihadis than there are U.S. victims of those jihadis. You would treat them the same as the jihadis, not to mention that you'd like to do the same to those Muslims the jihadis oppress. Don't lecture anyone on resisting the evil of jihadis, you're enabling them.

Ummm...

Does this mean you understand there is an Islamic fascist movement which is at war with us as well as fellow Muslims who do not follow their ideology?

Perhaps Brett should address whether in America Christianity is at war with itself, considering the role of the Revengelicals in helping Russian to aid in Trump's election. How about a chorus of the 2nd A "Stout Hearted Men" to arouse the Brettbart Crusade against Islam, fortified by stout.

As to Brett's:

"But just like with the USSR, it's important to remember that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend."

assuming Russia is America's enemy, Brett might give us some idea as to other enemies of Russia so we can better assess which of the latter are America's friends, or no.

"Brett could timeline the various Crusades to consider which side was the aggressor and other pertinent information about warfare."

I think you're probably already aware that the Crusades were a matter of reconquering Christian territories Islam had captured, after they decided to stop allowing access to Christian holy sites. It's pretty standard history.

Brett, back at you, in spades. In addition to Brett's skills at building bridges to nowhere, he does the same with "standard history. Perhaps Brett thinks of the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq as yet another Crusade. Brett's simpletonian views on the Constitution are matched by his hysterical [sic] views. Nice try, Hemlock.

Our absolute bureaucracy has taken another big step towards totalitarianism.

Democrats in the intelligence bureaucracy appear to be spying on the Republican political opposition without any disclosed probable cause of criminal activity and then selectively and feloniously providing what they unconstitutionally obtained to the Democrat media for the purpose of falsely suggesting Team Trump is working with Russian intelligence.

This goes WAY beyond the usual media game of playing the innuendo.

This is the big brother totalitarianism multiple professors here feared would result from the expanding surveillance state.

"Islam is, theologically, and as a practical matter, at war with the whole non-Islamic world."

Brett, I'm going to go out on a (likely very short) limb here and think you haven't studied, and therefore don't know much, about Islamic theology. I'm no expert either (but unlike you, I'm not going to offer a conclusion based on my lack of expertise). On the other hand, we have far, far more Muslims in the world that don't seem to be at war with us or the non-Islamic world than we have those that seem to be.

And your WWI analogy is inapt. For it to be so we would have had to been allied with some Nazi faction fighting the other Nazis (after all, you're condemning 'Islam' generally). Even in your analogy one might note that while we were allied with the Soviets we strongly played down anti-Soviet rhetoric and policy.

"Does this mean you understand there is an Islamic fascist movement which is at war with us as well as fellow Muslims who do not follow their ideology?"

Bart,

Of course I understand that we have enemies who are motivated by an Islamic ideology. They seem to be at odds with many other, seemingly the large majority, of others who are motivated by an Islamic ideology. That makes it foolish to generalize to all Muslims. Not only would it not be correct, but it can alienate actual and potential allies.

SPAM I AM!'s chanting/meditation was short-lived. Now he's back in his Chicken Little "The Sky Is Falling!" mode with his latest screed that closes with:

"If this does not scare the hell out of you, you have no imagination."

Mark has exposed Brett's efforts at hysterical history. Let me remind SPAM of Richard Nixon's Watergate travails and how the truth eventually came out. Apparently SPAM agrees with his claimed fascist Trump that the "leaks" on Flynn are worse than the sins of Trump's (non-Errol) Flynn. With Nixon it was about two years into his second term before he was forced to resign as a result of BI-PARTISAN efforts. The problem now is that Republicans, with few exceptions, are not quite up to challenging Trump with regard to Team Trumo's Russian connections. This failure is enough to scare all of us, especially those of us familiar with Nixon.

"And your WWI analogy is inapt. For it to be so we would have had to been allied with some Nazi faction fighting the other Nazis (after all, you're condemning 'Islam' generally). Even in your analogy one might note that while we were allied with the Soviets we strongly played down anti-Soviet rhetoric and policy."

No, I'm basically viewing the Nazis and USSR as equivalent in this analogy; They did start WWII on the same side, after all, I view them as factions within the totalitarian movement.

Yes, it's quite true that most of Islam is not actively at war with us at any given time, and that's helpful, and we don't really want to change it. But it shouldn't cause us to make the mistake of viewing them as harmless, or even friends.

Brett in the past expressed atheistic beliefs but as with concern about the power of the state and the federal government, his sentiments about religion turn out to be a matter of selective concern of use of power and so forth. Mixed with a confused view of history and the beliefs of his targets. This is far from unique, but since he's here, let's just use him as a sort of case study.

Finally, since t.v. was referenced, Mark Field has a book out about a t.v. show.

Theologically, Brett is largely correct. The Quran calls for the establishment of a theocracy which enforces the laws of Allah laid out in the Quran. Under this theocracy, People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are second class citizens who pay tribute to the theocracy. All others are forcibly converted or put to death.

On the ground, a substantial minority of Islam is part of or supports a fascist movement to impose a particularly vicious form of the Quraninc theocracy, which forcibly converts or mass murders People of the Book and other Muslims the fascists consider apostate.

As if this were not bad enough, a majority of other Muslims are standing by while the fascists perpetrate their genocide against Christians and Jews the way most Christian Germans stood by while the Nazis perpetrated their genocide against the Jews. These Muslims only have a problem when the fascists come for them.

Bart wasn't bothered when it seemed Russian assisted Wikileaks hacked DNC operatives, selectively released to the media, and then the media reported. But when similar things happen linking Trumpistas to Putin's Russia, he's apoplectic. Shocked.

"I'm basically viewing the Nazis and USSR as equivalent in this analogy"

Which is a bit daft. Thank God FDR didn't see them as equivalent.

Again: most Muslim are not allied with our enemies. And even if they were, it would be a major tactical error to spite our actual and potential Muslim allies to impugn Islam generally.

What's going on here is your gross bigotry, as exemplified by the other day when I defended allowing Alawite Muslims from Syria to enter and you responded by noting a newsstory of bad behavior by Sunni Muslims from North Africa to argue against it. That kind of gross generalization error is fundamental to bigotry.

Full stop. You don't know wha the 'quran calls for' or what most believers in that book think it calls for. At various times in history Christians would have sworn the Bible 'called for' all kinds of awful things.

"On the ground, a substantial minority of Islam is part of or supports a fascist movement "

Then it is amazingly foolish, as well as morally bigoted, to generalize that to Muslims generally. We want the majority not included on our side. You're enabling our enemy. Useful idiots are not much better than traitors.

The Nazis and the Communists were equivalent, in the sense that they were both totalitarian ideologies, and were just different approaches to totalitarian socialism. They were functionally different in that, though they started WWII on the same side, the USSR became open to forming a temporary alliance with us, for the duration of the war, after the Nazis stupidly attacked them before finishing conquering Europe.

This made it worth treating them as different, but didn't justify mistaking the USSR for a friend or true ally. After the war they were less aggressive than the Nazis had been, but that was more a matter of the balance of military power, than their actually being favorably disposed towards us.

I think the situation is basically similar with Islam. It has factions which are actively at war with us, and factions which are content to gradually expand. And it has internal divisions which we can exploit. But Islam does not regard other religions as being entitled to exist. Only as sometimes the situation not yet being ripe to attack them.

Maybe some day Islam will have something like the Christian Reformation, and become less of a threat to everyone else. That day has not yet come.